| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Religious meetings at the Natural Cafe | |
| Posted by: | Sean Hodges | |
| Date/Time: | 21/05/07 15:59:00 |
| I'd rather not Roland. When you move from disputing the biological evidence for evolution, into disputing the physics (of radioactive dating) it gets ever more arcane and abstruse, and I see no reason to clutter up the board with it. I've done K-Ar dating (on hyperalkaline volcanic rocks), and I know the theory (and assumptions) behind Ar-Ar, Rb-Sr, Nd-Sm and U-disequilibrium dating. The scientific community has thoroughly tested and challenged the techniques and assumptions, and has used the tools to generate a vast range of dates, most of which are impressively internally consistent. Where anomalous dates have been derived there has usually been a boring explanation where one or more assumptions can be shown to be invalid, or that the model being tested was wrong - and the rocks were significantly older or younger than expected. The creationists are looking at the techniques from the viewpoint of "it must be wrong because it contradicts the bible" and struggling to find fault. If they actually disprove (as in, using science) the validity of the radioactive dating method, it will be a major upset for the science of geology, and will certainly get widespread coverage. I will wait for that coverage, rather than reading bible tracts disguised as research by the creationists. |